This study explores time trends in public trust in science in the United States from 1974 to 2010. More precisely, I test Mooney’s (2005) claim that conservatives in the United States have become increasingly distrustful of science. Using data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social Survey, I examine group differences in trust in science and group-specific change in these attitudes over time. Results show that group differences in trust in science are largely stable over the period, except for respondents identifying as conservative. Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest. The patterns for science are also unique when compared to public trust in other secular institutions. Results show enduring differences in trust in science by social class, ethnicity, gender, church attendance, and region. I explore the implications of these findings, specifically, the potential for political divisions to emerge over the cultural authority of science and the social role of experts in the formation of public policy.

Gauchat contextualizes his findings in relation to three different hypotheses present in the existing literature:

"The cultural ascendency thesis predicts a uniform increase
in public trust in science across all social groups. In other words, the
special congruence of science and modern institutions increases the
need for scientific knowledge and public education, which, in turn,
encourages public trust in science"

"By contrast, scholars have predicted a uniform decline in public trust across all social groups, or the alienation thesis.
This decline in public trust is associated with a cultural backlash
against technocratic authority and science’s inability to defend itself
against its own standards in public discourse"

"Finally, the politicization thesis predicts that ideological
conservatives will experience group-specific declines in trust in
science over time. Conservatives’ distrust is attributable to the
political philosophy and intellectual culture accompanying the [new
right] and the increased connection between scientific knowledge and
regulatory regimes in the United States, the latter of which
conservatives generally oppose."

Here is the summary of his findings as it relates to the three hypotheses:

(T)his study shows that public trust in science has
not declined since the 1970s except among
conservatives and those who frequently attend
church. Accordingly, the analysis provides
negligible evidence for the cultural ascendency
thesis, which suggests that trust in science will
increase over time. Nor do results support the
alienation thesis that predicts a uniform decline
in public trust in science. In general, results are
consistent with claims of the politicization
thesis and show that conservatives experienced
long-term group-specific declines rather than
an abrupt cultural break.

The study's findings also have interesting implications for the 'deficit model' which predicts that individuals with higher levels of education will possess greater trust in science.

Additionally, one of
the key findings here involves the relationship
between education and trust in science. In
essence, this study greatly complicates claims
of the deficit model, which predicts that individuals
with higher levels of education will
possess greater trust in science, by showing
that educated conservatives uniquely experienced
the decline in trust. This interesting
result may indicate that educated conservatives
have been most affected by the NR’s (New Right's) identity
work. Moreover, it suggests that scientific literacy
and education are unlikely to have uniform
effects on various publics, especially
when ideology and identity intervene to create
social ontologies in opposition to established
cultures of knowledge (e.g., the scientific community,
intelligentsia, and mainstream media).

While Gauchat's analysis does little to explain precisely why conservatives, and not other groups, have disproportionately lost their trust in science, he does report several tantalizing suggestions:

One way of thinking about science is as one form of knowledge among others such as common sense and religious tradition. Gauchat found that "conservatives were far more likely to define science as knowledge that should conform to common sense and religious tradition."

Secondly, "conservatives’ unfavorable attitudes are most acute in relation to government funding of science and the use of scientific knowledge to influence social policy (see Gauchat 2010). Conservatives thus appear especially averse to regulatory science, defined here as the mutual dependence of organized science and government policy."

This latter pattern leads to a speculation about the process responsible for the historical change:

Paradoxically,
it is possible that science’s cultural authority
engendered politicization, particularly its role
in policy formation and regulation of private
interests. This assumes that science’s cultural
authority has grown—especially among legal,
political, and economic institutions (see Jasanoff
2004)—to the point that the scientific
community inevitably becomes entangled in
polarized conflicts (e.g., economic growth
versus environmental sustainability). As a result, science is “increasingly seen as being politicized and not disinterested” (Yearley 2005:121).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Environmental or Ecological Sociology?

We are a group of faculty and students in the Sociology department at the University of New Brunswick. As humans, we observe the multitude of problems facing humanity -- globalization, climate change, economic growth and collapse, pollution, wars, population increase and international migration, peak oil -- and wonder what the future will bring. As sociologists, we question the utility of current sociological theory for understanding the relationship between the natural and social systems that underpins many of these problems. As theorists, we are interested in unpacking the complexity of the modern world by integrating sociological theory with ecological theory and complex adaptive systems theory. Our planet is your planet. Join us on our journey and in our conversation.